Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-06 Thread Philip Thrift


On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 3:03:19 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/6/2019 3:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> On 5 Jan 2019, at 22:18, Brent Meeker  > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 1/5/2019 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>  On 4 Jan 2019, at 19:35, Brent Meeker  > wrote: 
>  
>  
>  
>  On 1/4/2019 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >> On 4 Jan 2019, at 05:16, Brent Meeker  > wrote: 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On 1/3/2019 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> >>> As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the 
> plausibility of the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world 
> appearances much before I realised the physicists were already open to this 
> for empirical reason. Once you understand that there are infinitely many 
> computations going through you actual state, 
> >> What does it mean "your actual state"?   How is it defined within 
> the UD? 
> > It is defined indexically, like in a block universe, but in a more 
> precise way through the Gödel number of a Löbian machine in the []p & X 
> modes (with X in {p, <>t, <>t & p}, p being limited to the sigma_1 
> (semi-computable) arithmetical sentences. 
>  I don't think I understand that.  You're saying that within all the 
> UD computations there are ones that implement specific Lobian machines and 
> their interactions with some world they are embedded in? 
> >>> This comes from the first person indeterminacy on the computations. 
> >> Every computation is a person? 
> > That would be a category error. We can only say that a person is 
> associated to (infinitely many) computations, which are those bringing your 
> state through your brain/body/history here and now. 
>
> That is sufficiently vague so as to be meaningless.  Which infinitely 
> many computations?  Sometimes you write as if the computations are 
> instantiating conscious thoughts.  But other places you refer to the 
> computations as being "below our substitution level" implying that they 
> are simulations of the brain or lower. 
>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> What does it mean "a computation"? ...one of the threads of the UD?  or 
> some state of the UD? 
> > A thread in the UD, or anything equivalent with the sequence (on s): 
> phi_i,s (j), where the s is for the sth step of the computation. The UD run 
> all phi_i,s (j), for all, i, j, and s. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>> To have a probability notion, we need to define the measure one by []p 
> & <>t. (Because with the logic G we don’t have []p -> <>t, and we need the 
> “<>t” to avoid the cul-de-sac (cf the typical default hypothesis in 
> probability theory). 
> >>> 
> >>> The FPI is on all computations (sigma_1 sentences), but they are 
> restricted by being those implementing consistent extensions on the Löbian 
> machine “you are”. 
> >> Consistent in what sense?  Just not proving a contradiction...how does 
>  thread of the UD prove a contradiction? 
> > The thread in the UD does not prove contradiction, but some threads 
> support Löbian machine, which can be or not consistent. The FPI is on the 
> thread which supports the consistent extension. (“Supports”, not “is”). 
>
> Another vague term.  What does "supports" mean? 
>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> or does it mean consistent in the sense of representing a 
> quasi-classical world in which the electron's spin measures either UP of 
> DOWN but not both? 
> > No, that is for latter, and it concerns the “consistent continuations” 
> as seen in the observable modes ([]p & X, with X being p, or <>p, or <>p & 
> p), p sigma_1. It does not mean <>p (consistent p), but <>p v p, or, <>p v 
> p v []f. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >> 
> >>> There is no “world” per, only computations “rich enough” to continue 
> consistently your history (the “world” will be apparent only). 
> >> So will it be apparently consistent? 
> > Yes. 
> > 
> > 
> >> What would it mean for it to be inconsistent? 
> > To get a contradiction at some bottom level. To prove that 0 is equal to 
> 1. 
>
> So some thread of the UD proving 0=1?  But the treads of the UD just 
> compute...they don't prove anything.  They are already assumed to be 
> functions. 
>
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>Logic is timeless so if it proves X and then it proves not-X that is 
> a contradiction.  But FP experience is not timeless,  so X can be true now 
> and not-X true later and there is no contradiction. 
> > I military myself to sound (and thus automatically consistent) machine. 
>
> But the UD is executing all possible machines. 
>
> > Real machine in real life have a non monotonic layer so that they can 
> revise their opinion. That is not needed to solve the mind body problem and 
> to derive the physical appearance from arithmetic. To interview 
> inconsistent machine would be like interviewing a sick people believing 
> that he is Napoleon to study Napoleon’s life. 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> >>> 
> > Of 

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-06 Thread Brent Meeker




On 1/6/2019 3:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 5 Jan 2019, at 22:18, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 1/5/2019 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 4 Jan 2019, at 19:35, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 1/4/2019 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 4 Jan 2019, at 05:16, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 1/3/2019 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the plausibility of 
the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world appearances much before I 
realised the physicists were already open to this for empirical reason. Once 
you understand that there are infinitely many computations going through you 
actual state,

What does it mean "your actual state"?   How is it defined within the UD?

It is defined indexically, like in a block universe, but in a more precise way through the Gödel 
number of a Löbian machine in the []p & X modes (with X in {p, <>t, <>t & p}, p 
being limited to the sigma_1 (semi-computable) arithmetical sentences.

I don't think I understand that.  You're saying that within all the UD 
computations there are ones that implement specific Lobian machines and their 
interactions with some world they are embedded in?

This comes from the first person indeterminacy on the computations.

Every computation is a person?

That would be a category error. We can only say that a person is associated to 
(infinitely many) computations, which are those bringing your state through 
your brain/body/history here and now.


That is sufficiently vague so as to be meaningless.  Which infinitely 
many computations?  Sometimes you write as if the computations are 
instantiating conscious thoughts.  But other places you refer to the 
computations as being "below our substitution level" implying that they 
are simulations of the brain or lower.








What does it mean "a computation"? ...one of the threads of the UD?  or some 
state of the UD?

A thread in the UD, or anything equivalent with the sequence (on s): phi_i,s 
(j), where the s is for the sth step of the computation. The UD run all phi_i,s 
(j), for all, i, j, and s.







To have a probability notion, we need to define the measure one by []p & <>t. (Because with 
the logic G we don’t have []p -> <>t, and we need the “<>t” to avoid the cul-de-sac (cf 
the typical default hypothesis in probability theory).

The FPI is on all computations (sigma_1 sentences), but they are restricted by 
being those implementing consistent extensions on the Löbian machine “you are”.

Consistent in what sense?  Just not proving a contradiction...how does  thread 
of the UD prove a contradiction?

The thread in the UD does not prove contradiction, but some threads support 
Löbian machine, which can be or not consistent. The FPI is on the thread which 
supports the consistent extension. (“Supports”, not “is”).


Another vague term.  What does "supports" mean?







or does it mean consistent in the sense of representing a quasi-classical world 
in which the electron's spin measures either UP of DOWN but not both?

No, that is for latter, and it concerns the “consistent continuations” as seen in the observable modes ([]p & X, 
with X being p, or <>p, or <>p & p), p sigma_1. It does not mean <>p (consistent p), but 
<>p v p, or, <>p v p v []f.







There is no “world” per, only computations “rich enough” to continue 
consistently your history (the “world” will be apparent only).

So will it be apparently consistent?

Yes.



What would it mean for it to be inconsistent?

To get a contradiction at some bottom level. To prove that 0 is equal to 1.


So some thread of the UD proving 0=1?  But the treads of the UD just 
compute...they don't prove anything.  They are already assumed to be 
functions.








   Logic is timeless so if it proves X and then it proves not-X that is a 
contradiction.  But FP experience is not timeless,  so X can be true now and 
not-X true later and there is no contradiction.

I military myself to sound (and thus automatically consistent) machine.


But the UD is executing all possible machines.


Real machine in real life have a non monotonic layer so that they can revise 
their opinion. That is not needed to solve the mind body problem and to derive 
the physical appearance from arithmetic. To interview inconsistent machine 
would be like interviewing a sick people believing that he is Napoleon to study 
Napoleon’s life.














Of coure, "actual state" does not refer to anything in the mind-block picture 
(which is just the structure (N, 0, +, *)). The actual state is purely phenomenological.

?? This is supposed to explain phenomenology in terms of computations.  I understand 
computations, like Turing machines, have states.  But I don't understand these 
"actual states”.

I am not sure to understand your problem here. All mind state are actual from 
the first person point of view.

"Mind state" = "a conscious thought"?  OK, but then how does that relate to the 
computations of a UD?

We lost the 

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 5 Jan 2019, at 22:18, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/5/2019 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 4 Jan 2019, at 19:35, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/4/2019 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2019, at 05:16, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/3/2019 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the 
>> plausibility of the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world 
>> appearances much before I realised the physicists were already open to 
>> this for empirical reason. Once you understand that there are infinitely 
>> many computations going through you actual state,
> What does it mean "your actual state"?   How is it defined within the UD?
 It is defined indexically, like in a block universe, but in a more precise 
 way through the Gödel number of a Löbian machine in the []p & X modes 
 (with X in {p, <>t, <>t & p}, p being limited to the sigma_1 
 (semi-computable) arithmetical sentences.
>>> I don't think I understand that.  You're saying that within all the UD 
>>> computations there are ones that implement specific Lobian machines and 
>>> their interactions with some world they are embedded in?
>> This comes from the first person indeterminacy on the computations.
> 
> Every computation is a person? 

That would be a category error. We can only say that a person is associated to 
(infinitely many) computations, which are those bringing your state through 
your brain/body/history here and now.




> What does it mean "a computation"? ...one of the threads of the UD?  or some 
> state of the UD?

A thread in the UD, or anything equivalent with the sequence (on s): phi_i,s 
(j), where the s is for the sth step of the computation. The UD run all phi_i,s 
(j), for all, i, j, and s.






> 
>> To have a probability notion, we need to define the measure one by []p & 
>> <>t. (Because with the logic G we don’t have []p -> <>t, and we need the 
>> “<>t” to avoid the cul-de-sac (cf the typical default hypothesis in 
>> probability theory).
>> 
>> The FPI is on all computations (sigma_1 sentences), but they are restricted 
>> by being those implementing consistent extensions on the Löbian machine “you 
>> are”.
> Consistent in what sense?  Just not proving a contradiction...how does  
> thread of the UD prove a contradiction? 

The thread in the UD does not prove contradiction, but some threads support 
Löbian machine, which can be or not consistent. The FPI is on the thread which 
supports the consistent extension. (“Supports”, not “is”).




> or does it mean consistent in the sense of representing a quasi-classical 
> world in which the electron's spin measures either UP of DOWN but not both?

No, that is for latter, and it concerns the “consistent continuations” as seen 
in the observable modes ([]p & X, with X being p, or <>p, or <>p & p), p 
sigma_1. It does not mean <>p (consistent p), but <>p v p, or, <>p v p v []f.




> 
> 
>> There is no “world” per, only computations “rich enough” to continue 
>> consistently your history (the “world” will be apparent only).
> 
> So will it be apparently consistent? 

Yes. 


> What would it mean for it to be inconsistent?

To get a contradiction at some bottom level. To prove that 0 is equal to 1.




>   Logic is timeless so if it proves X and then it proves not-X that is a 
> contradiction.  But FP experience is not timeless,  so X can be true now and 
> not-X true later and there is no contradiction.

I military myself to sound (and thus automatically consistent) machine. Real 
machine in real life have a non monotonic layer so that they can revise their 
opinion. That is not needed to solve the mind body problem and to derive the 
physical appearance from arithmetic. To interview inconsistent machine would be 
like interviewing a sick people believing that he is Napoleon to study 
Napoleon’s life.






> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
 Of coure, "actual state" does not refer to anything in the mind-block 
 picture (which is just the structure (N, 0, +, *)). The actual state is 
 purely phenomenological.
>>> ?? This is supposed to explain phenomenology in terms of computations.  I 
>>> understand computations, like Turing machines, have states.  But I don't 
>>> understand these "actual states”.
>> I am not sure to understand your problem here. All mind state are actual 
>> from the first person point of view.
> "Mind state" = "a conscious thought"?  OK, but then how does that relate to 
> the computations of a UD?

We lost the mind-brain identity thesis. We can (by Mechanism) associate a mind 
to a machine, but the mind itself is truly associated to all computations, 
sufficiently similar (from the 1p view) to the one we start with.
The brain-mind association is one-one, but the mind-brain(s) association is 
one-many.

Imagine that your brain is duplicated, so that there are two identical brains 
int who 

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-06 Thread Philip Thrift


On Sunday, January 6, 2019 at 1:49:06 AM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 1/5/2019 9:49 PM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>> But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 which 
>> showed spacetime to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck length?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *If we can't measure a Planck length, how can we measure of fraction of 
> that value? How large are those tiles in relation to Planck length? AG*
>
>
> By looking for the cumulative effect of the EM waves interacting with the 
> "graininess" of spacetime over very many grains.  The idea is that photons 
> of wavelength very long compared to the grain size will just average over 
> them as though they were continua. But very high energy, gamma ray photons, 
> with much shorter wavelength, will experience the graininess and propagate 
> slightly slower, which over cosmological distances will produce a 
> difference in arrival time at our telescopes.  Read the paper.
>
> Brent
>



I don't know enough about the LQG mathematics to reconcile it with the 
result 

"Such limits constrain dispersive effects created, for example, by the 
spacetime foam of quantum gravity. In the context of quantum gravity, our 
bounds set M1c2 greater than 525 times the Planck mass, suggesting that 
spacetime is smooth at energies near and slightly above the Planck mass."


But one thing may be happening is that LQG may model space as 
(Planck-sized) cells, so a single path from A to B through space would be 
jig-jaggy, but if multiple paths from A to B were "averaged", then a more 
continuous result would appear.

- pt


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-05 Thread Brent Meeker



On 1/5/2019 9:49 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:



But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2
 which showed spacetime to be
smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck length?

Brent


*If we can't measure a Planck length, how can we measure of fraction 
of that value? How large are those tiles in relation to Planck length? AG*


By looking for the cumulative effect of the EM waves interacting with 
the "graininess" of spacetime over very many grains.  The idea is that 
photons of wavelength very long compared to the grain size will just 
average over them as though they were continua. But very high energy, 
gamma ray photons, with much shorter wavelength, will experience the 
graininess and propagate slightly slower, which over cosmological 
distances will produce a difference in arrival time at our telescopes.  
Read the paper.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-05 Thread agrayson2000


On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 2:33:54 AM UTC, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php
>
> Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in 
> the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum 
> mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time. 
> Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in loop 
> quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist.
>
>
> "In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as small 
> as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where the 
> gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the fabric 
> of space-time has a *tile-like structure*, which cannot be divided beyond 
> the smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this is the case 
> inside black holes and therefore there is no singularity," Singh said.
>
> "These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- which 
> resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than we can 
> detect with today's technology, but we have precise mathematical equations 
> that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the founding 
> fathers of loop quantum gravity.
>
>
> But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 which 
> showed spacetime to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck length?
>
> Brent
>

*If we can't measure a Planck length, how can we measure of fraction of 
that value? How large are those tiles in relation to Planck length? AG*

>
>
> "At LSU, we have been developing state-of-the-art computational techniques 
> to extract physical consequences of these physical equations using 
> supercomputers, bringing us closer to reliably test quantum gravity," Singh 
> said.
>
> Einstein's theory fails not only at the center of the black holes but also 
> to explain how the universe was created from the Big Bang singularity. 
> Therefore, a decade ago, Ashtekar, Singh and collaborators began to extend 
> physics beyond the Big Bang and make new predictions using loop quantum 
> gravity. Using the mathematical equations and computational techniques of 
> loop quantum gravity, they showed that the Big Bang is replaced by the "Big 
> Bounce."
>
>
>
> [ a short lecture on LQG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMpkFde3euA ]
>
> - pt
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-05 Thread Brent Meeker




On 1/5/2019 1:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 4 Jan 2019, at 19:35, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 1/4/2019 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 4 Jan 2019, at 05:16, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 1/3/2019 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the plausibility of 
the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world appearances much before I 
realised the physicists were already open to this for empirical reason. Once 
you understand that there are infinitely many computations going through you 
actual state,

What does it mean "your actual state"?   How is it defined within the UD?

It is defined indexically, like in a block universe, but in a more precise way through the Gödel 
number of a Löbian machine in the []p & X modes (with X in {p, <>t, <>t & p}, p 
being limited to the sigma_1 (semi-computable) arithmetical sentences.

I don't think I understand that.  You're saying that within all the UD 
computations there are ones that implement specific Lobian machines and their 
interactions with some world they are embedded in?

This comes from the first person indeterminacy on the computations.


Every computation is a person?  What does it mean "a computation"? 
...one of the threads of the UD?  or some state of the UD?



To have a probability notion, we need to define the measure one by []p & <>t. (Because with 
the logic G we don’t have []p -> <>t, and we need the “<>t” to avoid the cul-de-sac (cf 
the typical default hypothesis in probability theory).

The FPI is on all computations (sigma_1 sentences), but they are restricted by 
being those implementing consistent extensions on the Löbian machine “you are”.
Consistent in what sense?  Just not proving a contradiction...how does  
thread of the UD prove a contradiction?  or does it mean consistent in 
the sense of representing a quasi-classical world in which the 
electron's spin measures either UP of DOWN but not both?




There is no “world” per, only computations “rich enough” to continue 
consistently your history (the “world” will be apparent only).


So will it be apparently consistent?  What would it mean for it to be 
inconsistent?  Logic is timeless so if it proves X and then it proves 
not-X that is a contradiction.  But FP experience is not timeless,  so X 
can be true now and not-X true later and there is no contradiction.











Of coure, "actual state" does not refer to anything in the mind-block picture 
(which is just the structure (N, 0, +, *)). The actual state is purely phenomenological.

?? This is supposed to explain phenomenology in terms of computations.  I understand 
computations, like Turing machines, have states.  But I don't understand these 
"actual states”.

I am not sure to understand your problem here. All mind state are actual from 
the first person point of view.
"Mind state" = "a conscious thought"?  OK, but then how does that relate 
to the computations of a UD?




The definition of “[]p” is already an indexical,


"Indexical" literally means you can point to it.  I don't understand how 
you are using the word.



and you can add axioms like “I am in Helsinki” or “I am in Washington”, which 
change the actual state/machine (but G and G* still applies to them). The 
phenomenologies are given by the hypostases. The physical phenomenologies is 
given by the sigma_1 sentences structured by the mode of each “material” 
hypostases (the one given by the X above).





We cannot define it in any 3p terms. It is pure 1p, but with mechanism,

But the idea is to explain 1p experience in 3p terms, i.e. in terms of 
computations.

At the meta level only. We can define, like Theaetetus, knowledge (which is 1p) by “[]p 
& p”, but only because we limit ourself, non constructively, to sound machine. The 
machine itself cannot do that: “[]p & p” cannot be define in the language of the 
machine, for reason similar as the fact that they cannot define truth.

This explains why the 1p “I” has to look non definable by each concerned entity 
about itself,


Fine, I understand that.  But you propose that it is definable in terms 
of the computations of the UD and that's the definition I seek.



and this is what lead to retrieved consciousness associated indexically, and non 
constructively, to the machine, if you are OK to define consciousness by (immediate, 
with <>t) knowable, indubitable, but also non rationally justifiable (provable) 
and non definable.
Those are all 1p attributes of propositions.  The question is how they 
are instantiated in the UD computations.




Consciousness is just the name we give to that personal feeling.

You see that consciousness has no 3p definition from the machine’s point of 
view. But “we”, who knows that the machine is sound (because we limit ourself 
to such machine) can know and prove this. The machine can do the same about any 
machine supposed to be correct.








its (meta) logic is captured by the (3p describable if the machine assumes 

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 4 Jan 2019, at 19:35, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/4/2019 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 4 Jan 2019, at 05:16, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 1/3/2019 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the plausibility 
 of the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world appearances much 
 before I realised the physicists were already open to this for empirical 
 reason. Once you understand that there are infinitely many computations 
 going through you actual state,
>>> What does it mean "your actual state"?   How is it defined within the UD?
>> 
>> It is defined indexically, like in a block universe, but in a more precise 
>> way through the Gödel number of a Löbian machine in the []p & X modes (with 
>> X in {p, <>t, <>t & p}, p being limited to the sigma_1 (semi-computable) 
>> arithmetical sentences.
> 
> I don't think I understand that.  You're saying that within all the UD 
> computations there are ones that implement specific Lobian machines and their 
> interactions with some world they are embedded in?

This comes from the first person indeterminacy on the computations. To have a 
probability notion, we need to define the measure one by []p & <>t. (Because 
with the logic G we don’t have []p -> <>t, and we need the “<>t” to avoid the 
cul-de-sac (cf the typical default hypothesis in probability theory).

The FPI is on all computations (sigma_1 sentences), but they are restricted by 
being those implementing consistent extensions on the Löbian machine “you are”. 
There is no “world” per, only computations “rich enough” to continue 
consistently your history (the “world” will be apparent only).







> 
>> 
>> Of coure, "actual state" does not refer to anything in the mind-block 
>> picture (which is just the structure (N, 0, +, *)). The actual state is 
>> purely phenomenological.
> 
> ?? This is supposed to explain phenomenology in terms of computations.  I 
> understand computations, like Turing machines, have states.  But I don't 
> understand these "actual states”.

I am not sure to understand your problem here. All mind state are actual from 
the first person point of view. The definition of “[]p” is already an 
indexical, and you can add axioms like “I am in Helsinki” or “I am in 
Washington”, which change the actual state/machine (but G and G* still applies 
to them). The phenomenologies are given by the hypostases. The physical 
phenomenologies is given by the sigma_1 sentences structured by the mode of 
each “material” hypostases (the one given by the X above).




> 
>> We cannot define it in any 3p terms. It is pure 1p, but with mechanism,
> 
> But the idea is to explain 1p experience in 3p terms, i.e. in terms of 
> computations.

At the meta level only. We can define, like Theaetetus, knowledge (which is 1p) 
by “[]p & p”, but only because we limit ourself, non constructively, to sound 
machine. The machine itself cannot do that: “[]p & p” cannot be define in the 
language of the machine, for reason similar as the fact that they cannot define 
truth.

This explains why the 1p “I” has to look non definable by each concerned entity 
about itself, and this is what lead to retrieved consciousness associated 
indexically, and non constructively, to the machine, if you are OK to define 
consciousness by (immediate, with <>t) knowable, indubitable, but also non 
rationally justifiable (provable) and non definable. Consciousness is just the 
name we give to that personal feeling.

You see that consciousness has no 3p definition from the machine’s point of 
view. But “we”, who knows that the machine is sound (because we limit ourself 
to such machine) can know and prove this. The machine can do the same about any 
machine supposed to be correct. 





> 
> 
>> its (meta) logic is captured by the (3p describable if the machine assumes 
>> Mechanism) material mode.
>> We know that intuitively: the actual state of the guy in Moscow is “I am in 
>> Moscow”, and the actual state of the guy in Washington is “I am in 
>> Washington”. Both are correct, but as everyone know (except John 
>> apparently), both the W and M guys  feel their actual state as being very 
>> different of the mental state of their counterpart.
> 
> The trouble with that explanation is that you have jumped from description in 
> terms of a UD, to a description in terms of a world with Washington and 
> Moscow and a duplicating machine.  Leaving a chasm of explanation between the 
> two.

Which chasm? Keep in mind that (at the meta-level) we assume computationalism. 
Whatever experience you live in the duplication experience in some “world” 
(assuming that exist), there will be computations in arithmetic mimicking those 
histories, and the 1p indeterminacy is on those computations. Again, I was 
assuming some “world” with Washington and Moscow, but that is neutral on the 
primary character that such world would have with the 

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-04 Thread Brent Meeker




On 1/4/2019 3:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 4 Jan 2019, at 05:16, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 1/3/2019 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the plausibility of 
the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world appearances much before I 
realised the physicists were already open to this for empirical reason. Once 
you understand that there are infinitely many computations going through you 
actual state,

What does it mean "your actual state"?   How is it defined within the UD?


It is defined indexically, like in a block universe, but in a more precise way through the Gödel 
number of a Löbian machine in the []p & X modes (with X in {p, <>t, <>t & p}, p 
being limited to the sigma_1 (semi-computable) arithmetical sentences.


I don't think I understand that.  You're saying that within all the UD 
computations there are ones that implement specific Lobian machines and 
their interactions with some world they are embedded in?




Of coure, "actual state" does not refer to anything in the mind-block picture 
(which is just the structure (N, 0, +, *)). The actual state is purely phenomenological.


?? This is supposed to explain phenomenology in terms of computations.  
I understand computations, like Turing machines, have states.  But I 
don't understand these "actual states".



We cannot define it in any 3p terms. It is pure 1p, but with mechanism,


But the idea is to explain 1p experience in 3p terms, i.e. in terms of 
computations.




its (meta) logic is captured by the (3p describable if the machine assumes 
Mechanism) material mode.
We know that intuitively: the actual state of the guy in Moscow is “I am in 
Moscow”, and the actual state of the guy in Washington is “I am in Washington”. 
Both are correct, but as everyone know (except John apparently), both the W and 
M guys  feel their actual state as being very different of the mental state of 
their counterpart.


The trouble with that explanation is that you have jumped from 
description in terms of a UD, to a description in terms of a world with 
Washington and Moscow and a duplicating machine.  Leaving a chasm of 
explanation between the two.


Brent




All indexicals are treated directly or indirectly with Kleene’s second 
recursion theorem. Like G and G* are shown arithmetically complete by using 
that theorem, or its equivalent formal version (Gödel diagonal lemma).

Bruno





Brent


you can understand that we have to see the trace of those computations when 
looking at ourself at a finer grained level than our substitution level. Then 
the rest is math, and more quantitative predictions.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 4 Jan 2019, at 05:16, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 1/3/2019 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the plausibility of 
>> the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world appearances much before 
>> I realised the physicists were already open to this for empirical reason. 
>> Once you understand that there are infinitely many computations going 
>> through you actual state, 
> 
> What does it mean "your actual state"?   How is it defined within the UD?


It is defined indexically, like in a block universe, but in a more precise way 
through the Gödel number of a Löbian machine in the []p & X modes (with X in 
{p, <>t, <>t & p}, p being limited to the sigma_1 (semi-computable) 
arithmetical sentences.

Of coure, "actual state" does not refer to anything in the mind-block picture 
(which is just the structure (N, 0, +, *)). The actual state is purely 
phenomenological. We cannot define it in any 3p terms. It is pure 1p, but with 
mechanism, its (meta) logic is captured by the (3p describable if the machine 
assumes Mechanism) material mode. 
We know that intuitively: the actual state of the guy in Moscow is “I am in 
Moscow”, and the actual state of the guy in Washington is “I am in Washington”. 
Both are correct, but as everyone know (except John apparently), both the W and 
M guys  feel their actual state as being very different of the mental state of 
their counterpart.

All indexicals are treated directly or indirectly with Kleene’s second 
recursion theorem. Like G and G* are shown arithmetically complete by using 
that theorem, or its equivalent formal version (Gödel diagonal lemma).

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> you can understand that we have to see the trace of those computations when 
>> looking at ourself at a finer grained level than our substitution level. 
>> Then the rest is math, and more quantitative predictions.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-03 Thread Brent Meeker




On 1/3/2019 6:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the 
plausibility of the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world 
appearances much before I realised the physicists were already open to 
this for empirical reason. Once you understand that there are 
infinitely many computations going through you actual state, 


What does it mean "your actual state"?   How is it defined within the UD?

Brent

you can understand that we have to see the trace of those computations 
when looking at ourself at a finer grained level than our substitution 
level. Then the rest is math, and more quantitative predictions.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-03 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 3 Jan 2019, at 02:26, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 12:18:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 30 Dec 2018, at 18:56, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 12:10:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> > On 24 Dec 2018, at 16:29, Mason Green > wrote: 
>> > 
>> > David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual universes 
>> > are discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is continuous). 
>> > 
>> > “within each universe all observable quantities are discrete, but the 
>> > multiverse as a whole is a continuum. When the equations of quantum theory 
>> > describe a continuous but not-directly-observable transition between two 
>> > values of a discrete quantity, what they are telling us is that the 
>> > transition does not take place entirely within one universe. So perhaps 
>> > the price of continuous motion is not an infinity of consecutive actions, 
>> > but an infinity of concurrent actions taking place across the multiverse.” 
>> > January, 2001 The Discrete and the Continuous 
>> 
>> This is consistent with Digital Mechanism, and plausibly mandatory too. The 
>> computations evolves discretly, vertically in the universal computational 
>> deployment (the tiny sigma_1 arithmetic), but the first person indeterminacy 
>> is horizontal and takes into account infinitely many computations. But the 
>> precise topology and cardinality remains open problems. 
>> 
>> Bruno 
>> 
>> Applying this to a horse race, one not only gets dIscrete multiple 
>> universes, one for each horse as the winner,
> 
> Why? I don’t see this. Horses could be classical machine, in which case the 
> same horse is the winner in all, or quasi-all universes.
> 
> You believe that everything that's possible to happen, must happen; ergo Many 
> Worlds.


I prove that all computations are run in arithmetic, with relative proportion, 
handled by the math of self)-reference. 

I don’t believe in any world, nor even that the notion of (physical) world make 
sense, at least when using my working hypothesis.

I do not assume a physical world, nor a physical theory. That is what we have 
to explain.





> Horses are classical objects, so you can reject this example of the fallacy 
> in your thinking by modeling a situation with similar outcomes in a quantum 
> setting. AG 

In this case, I was (temporally, for the sake of the discussion) assuming the 
SWE, but nothing more. 






>>  but assuming space is continuous, an additional uncountable set of 
>> universes for each winner, where the losers have different positions when 
>> the winner crosses the finish end line. This is not only beautiful. but 
>> utterly sublime. Wouldn't you agree? AG 
> 
> Yes, the multiplication would occur (assuming space continuous). But the same 
> horse would still be the winner, except perhaps if two horses are so close 
> that in some universe another one wins the race, due to that location 
> superposition. Yet, if the horse behaves classically, with respect to their 
> muscular force and strategy, the winner will be the same in some majority 
> (say) of worlds. That is a good thing, as it makes it possible for large 
> creature to have a partial control on their destiny, and take a lift instead 
> of jumping through a window. Of course such a classical appearance have to be 
> explained from the quantum formalism, and with mechanism, such quantum 
> formalism has to be justified from the statistics on many computations (of 
> all types).
> 
> If you recast the horse race in a quantum context, which shouldn't be too 
> difficult, you will see that your *bias* that all things which are possible 
> to happen, MUST happen, leads to an absurdity. Try this; imagine several 
> electrons fired simultaneously, and the winner is the one which lands at the 
> positive extremity. No broken legs here, but I think one could massage this 
> model to include that as well. AG

Yes, but that would be like, prior to the horse race, of putting them 
explicitly in a superposition state, like giving them some drugs according to 
some quantum choice. But without that, QM will predict the same horse will win 
in all “quasi-classical” reality.

As a scientist, I just count the evidences, and evaluate the plausibility of 
the big picture proposed.I predicted the many-world appearances much before I 
realised the physicists were already open to this for empirical reason. Once 
you understand that there are infinitely many computations going through you 
actual state, you can understand that we have to see the trace of those 
computations when looking at ourself at a finer grained level than our 
substitution level. Then the rest is math, and more quantitative predictions.

Bruno





> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> > "Everything List" group. 
>> > To unsubscribe from this group 

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-02 Thread agrayson2000


On Thursday, January 3, 2019 at 1:26:20 AM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 12:18:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 30 Dec 2018, at 18:56, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 12:10:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> > On 24 Dec 2018, at 16:29, Mason Green  wrote: 
>>> > 
>>> > David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual 
>>> universes are discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is continuous). 
>>> > 
>>> > “within each universe all observable quantities are discrete, but the 
>>> multiverse as a whole is a continuum. When the equations of quantum theory 
>>> describe a continuous but not-directly-observable transition between two 
>>> values of a discrete quantity, what they are telling us is that the 
>>> transition does not take place entirely within one universe. So perhaps the 
>>> price of continuous motion is not an infinity of consecutive actions, but 
>>> an infinity of concurrent actions taking place across the multiverse.” 
>>> January, 2001 The Discrete and the Continuous 
>>>
>>> This is consistent with Digital Mechanism, and plausibly mandatory too. 
>>> The computations evolves discretly, vertically in the universal 
>>> computational deployment (the tiny sigma_1 arithmetic), but the first 
>>> person indeterminacy is horizontal and takes into account infinitely many 
>>> computations. But the precise topology and cardinality remains open 
>>> problems. 
>>>
>>> Bruno 
>>>
>>
>> *Applying this to a horse race, one not only gets dIscrete multiple 
>> universes, **one for each horse as the winner,*
>>
>>
>> Why? I don’t see this. Horses could be classical machine, in which case 
>> the same horse is the winner in all, or quasi-all universes.
>>
>
>
> *You believe that everything that's possible to happen, must happen; ergo 
> Many Worlds. Horses are classical objects, so you can reject this example 
> of the fallacy in your thinking by modeling a situation with similar 
> outcomes in a quantum setting. AG *
>

*I just meant that you can recast the horse race (classical) example into a 
quantum situation which shows the absurdity of the claim that all possible 
outcomes MUST be manifest in some universe. AG *

> * but assuming space is continuous, an additional uncountable set of 
>> universes for each winner, where the losers have different positions when 
>> the winner crosses the finish end line. This is not only beautiful. but 
>> utterly sublime. Wouldn't you agree? AG *
>>
>>
>> Yes, the multiplication would occur (assuming space continuous). But the 
>> same horse would still be the winner, except perhaps if two horses are so 
>> close that in some universe another one wins the race, due to that location 
>> superposition. Yet, if the horse behaves classically, with respect to their 
>> muscular force and strategy, the winner will be the same in some majority 
>> (say) of worlds. That is a good thing, as it makes it possible for large 
>> creature to have a partial control on their destiny, and take a lift 
>> instead of jumping through a window. Of course such a classical appearance 
>> have to be explained from the quantum formalism, and with mechanism, such 
>> quantum formalism has to be justified from the statistics on many 
>> computations (of all types).
>>
>
> *If you recast the horse race in a quantum context, which shouldn't be too 
> difficult, you will see that your *bias* that all things which are possible 
> to happen, MUST happen, leads to an absurdity. Try this; imagine several 
> electrons fired simultaneously, and the winner is the one which lands at 
> the positive extremity. No broken legs here, but I think one could massage 
> this model to include that as well. AG*
>
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > 
>>> > -- 
>>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>>> Groups "Everything List" group. 
>>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. 
>>> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
>>> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
>>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>>>
>>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To 

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-02 Thread agrayson2000


On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 12:18:50 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Dec 2018, at 18:56, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 12:10:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 24 Dec 2018, at 16:29, Mason Green  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual 
>> universes are discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is continuous). 
>> > 
>> > “within each universe all observable quantities are discrete, but the 
>> multiverse as a whole is a continuum. When the equations of quantum theory 
>> describe a continuous but not-directly-observable transition between two 
>> values of a discrete quantity, what they are telling us is that the 
>> transition does not take place entirely within one universe. So perhaps the 
>> price of continuous motion is not an infinity of consecutive actions, but 
>> an infinity of concurrent actions taking place across the multiverse.” 
>> January, 2001 The Discrete and the Continuous 
>>
>> This is consistent with Digital Mechanism, and plausibly mandatory too. 
>> The computations evolves discretly, vertically in the universal 
>> computational deployment (the tiny sigma_1 arithmetic), but the first 
>> person indeterminacy is horizontal and takes into account infinitely many 
>> computations. But the precise topology and cardinality remains open 
>> problems. 
>>
>> Bruno 
>>
>
> *Applying this to a horse race, one not only gets dIscrete multiple 
> universes, **one for each horse as the winner,*
>
>
> Why? I don’t see this. Horses could be classical machine, in which case 
> the same horse is the winner in all, or quasi-all universes.
>


*You believe that everything that's possible to happen, must happen; ergo 
Many Worlds. Horses are classical objects, so you can reject this example 
of the fallacy in your thinking by modeling a situation with similar 
outcomes in a quantum setting. AG *

> * but assuming space is continuous, an additional uncountable set of 
> universes for each winner, where the losers have different positions when 
> the winner crosses the finish end line. This is not only beautiful. but 
> utterly sublime. Wouldn't you agree? AG *
>
>
> Yes, the multiplication would occur (assuming space continuous). But the 
> same horse would still be the winner, except perhaps if two horses are so 
> close that in some universe another one wins the race, due to that location 
> superposition. Yet, if the horse behaves classically, with respect to their 
> muscular force and strategy, the winner will be the same in some majority 
> (say) of worlds. That is a good thing, as it makes it possible for large 
> creature to have a partial control on their destiny, and take a lift 
> instead of jumping through a window. Of course such a classical appearance 
> have to be explained from the quantum formalism, and with mechanism, such 
> quantum formalism has to be justified from the statistics on many 
> computations (of all types).
>

*If you recast the horse race in a quantum context, which shouldn't be too 
difficult, you will see that your *bias* that all things which are possible 
to happen, MUST happen, leads to an absurdity. Try this; imagine several 
electrons fired simultaneously, and the winner is the one which lands at 
the positive extremity. No broken legs here, but I think one could massage 
this model to include that as well. AG*

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "Everything List" group. 
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. 
>> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
>> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>>
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2019-01-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 30 Dec 2018, at 18:56, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 12:10:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> > On 24 Dec 2018, at 16:29, Mason Green > 
> > wrote: 
> > 
> > David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual universes 
> > are discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is continuous). 
> > 
> > “within each universe all observable quantities are discrete, but the 
> > multiverse as a whole is a continuum. When the equations of quantum theory 
> > describe a continuous but not-directly-observable transition between two 
> > values of a discrete quantity, what they are telling us is that the 
> > transition does not take place entirely within one universe. So perhaps the 
> > price of continuous motion is not an infinity of consecutive actions, but 
> > an infinity of concurrent actions taking place across the multiverse.” 
> > January, 2001 The Discrete and the Continuous 
> 
> This is consistent with Digital Mechanism, and plausibly mandatory too. The 
> computations evolves discretly, vertically in the universal computational 
> deployment (the tiny sigma_1 arithmetic), but the first person indeterminacy 
> is horizontal and takes into account infinitely many computations. But the 
> precise topology and cardinality remains open problems. 
> 
> Bruno 
> 
> Applying this to a horse race, one not only gets dIscrete multiple universes, 
> one for each horse as the winner,

Why? I don’t see this. Horses could be classical machine, in which case the 
same horse is the winner in all, or quasi-all universes.




>  but assuming space is continuous, an additional uncountable set of universes 
> for each winner, where the losers have different positions when the winner 
> crosses the finish end line. This is not only beautiful. but utterly sublime. 
> Wouldn't you agree? AG 

Yes, the multiplication would occur (assuming space continuous). But the same 
horse would still be the winner, except perhaps if two horses are so close that 
in some universe another one wins the race, due to that location superposition. 
Yet, if the horse behaves classically, with respect to their muscular force and 
strategy, the winner will be the same in some majority (say) of worlds. That is 
a good thing, as it makes it possible for large creature to have a partial 
control on their destiny, and take a lift instead of jumping through a window. 
Of course such a classical appearance have to be explained from the quantum 
formalism, and with mechanism, such quantum formalism has to be justified from 
the statistics on many computations (of all types).

Bruno





> 
> 
> 
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> > "Everything List" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> > email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> > . 
> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> > . 
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> > . 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-30 Thread agrayson2000


On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:56:28 PM UTC, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 12:10:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 24 Dec 2018, at 16:29, Mason Green  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual 
>> universes are discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is continuous). 
>> > 
>> > “within each universe all observable quantities are discrete, but the 
>> multiverse as a whole is a continuum. When the equations of quantum theory 
>> describe a continuous but not-directly-observable transition between two 
>> values of a discrete quantity, what they are telling us is that the 
>> transition does not take place entirely within one universe. So perhaps the 
>> price of continuous motion is not an infinity of consecutive actions, but 
>> an infinity of concurrent actions taking place across the multiverse.” 
>> January, 2001 The Discrete and the Continuous 
>>
>> This is consistent with Digital Mechanism, and plausibly mandatory too. 
>> The computations evolves discretly, vertically in the universal 
>> computational deployment (the tiny sigma_1 arithmetic), but the first 
>> person indeterminacy is horizontal and takes into account infinitely many 
>> computations. But the precise topology and cardinality remains open 
>> problems. 
>>
>> Bruno 
>>
>
> *Applying this to a horse race, one not only gets dIscrete multiple 
> universes, one for each horse as the winner, but assuming space is 
> continuous, an additional uncountable set of universes for each winner, 
> where the losers have different positions when the winner crosses the 
> finish end line. This is not only beautiful. but utterly sublime. Wouldn't 
> you agree? AG *
>

*The Universe I prefer is where all horses except the winner, break all 
four legs as they exit the starting gate. Almost as good is where they 
break only three legs. There are many possibilities. Which do you prefer? 
AG *

>
>
>>
>>
>> > 
>> > -- 
>> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
>> Groups "Everything List" group. 
>> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
>> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. 
>> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. 
>> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
>> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-30 Thread agrayson2000


On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 12:10:12 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> > On 24 Dec 2018, at 16:29, Mason Green  > wrote: 
> > 
> > David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual universes 
> are discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is continuous). 
> > 
> > “within each universe all observable quantities are discrete, but the 
> multiverse as a whole is a continuum. When the equations of quantum theory 
> describe a continuous but not-directly-observable transition between two 
> values of a discrete quantity, what they are telling us is that the 
> transition does not take place entirely within one universe. So perhaps the 
> price of continuous motion is not an infinity of consecutive actions, but 
> an infinity of concurrent actions taking place across the multiverse.” 
> January, 2001 The Discrete and the Continuous 
>
> This is consistent with Digital Mechanism, and plausibly mandatory too. 
> The computations evolves discretly, vertically in the universal 
> computational deployment (the tiny sigma_1 arithmetic), but the first 
> person indeterminacy is horizontal and takes into account infinitely many 
> computations. But the precise topology and cardinality remains open 
> problems. 
>
> Bruno 
>

*Applying this to a horse race, one not only gets dIscrete multiple 
universes, one for each horse as the winner, but assuming space is 
continuous, an additional uncountable set of universes for each winner, 
where the losers have different positions when the winner crosses the 
finish end line. This is not only beautiful. but utterly sublime. Wouldn't 
you agree? AG *

>
>
>
> > 
> > -- 
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups "Everything List" group. 
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
> an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com . 
> > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> . 
> > Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
> > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-30 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 24 Dec 2018, at 16:29, Mason Green  wrote:
> 
> David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual universes are 
> discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is continuous).
> 
> “within each universe all observable quantities are discrete, but the 
> multiverse as a whole is a continuum. When the equations of quantum theory 
> describe a continuous but not-directly-observable transition between two 
> values of a discrete quantity, what they are telling us is that the 
> transition does not take place entirely within one universe. So perhaps the 
> price of continuous motion is not an infinity of consecutive actions, but an 
> infinity of concurrent actions taking place across the multiverse.” January, 
> 2001 The Discrete and the Continuous

This is consistent with Digital Mechanism, and plausibly mandatory too. The 
computations evolves discretly, vertically in the universal computational 
deployment (the tiny sigma_1 arithmetic), but the first person indeterminacy is 
horizontal and takes into account infinitely many computations. But the precise 
topology and cardinality remains open problems.

Bruno



> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-27 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 24 Dec 2018, at 20:58, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/24/2018 5:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 24 Dec 2018, at 07:44, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 12/23/2018 8:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
 
 
 On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker >>> > wrote:
 
 
 On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php 
> 
> 
> Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in 
> the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum 
> mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time. 
> Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in loop 
> quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist.
> 
> 
> "In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as 
> small as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where 
> the gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the 
> fabric of space-time has a tile-like structure, which cannot be divided 
> beyond the smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this is the 
> case inside black holes and therefore there is no singularity," Singh 
> said.
> 
> 
> "These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- which 
> resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than we 
> can detect with today's technology, but we have precise mathematical 
> equations that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the 
> founding fathers of loop quantum gravity.
> 
 
 But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 
  which showed spacetime to be smooth 
 down to 1/525 of the Planck length?
 
 Brent,
 
 Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory?  In another 
 thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but wasn't one of Bruno's 
 predictions that space and time would be continuous (not discrete), 
 therefore it would predict LQG is false, and then 
 https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2  
 would be a confirmation of that.
>>> 
>>> First, I don't see that his theory even predicts a topoloical space. 
>> 
>> By the semantics available for S4Grz1, and the X1* logics.
> 
> How does that define open sets?


Because S4Grz interprets (in a technical precise sense) Intuitionist logic, and 
add some structure to the topological interpretation of the truth value, common 
in intuitionistic semantic.

The OR is union of open sets, the AND is the intersection, the negation is the 
larger open set disjoint from a set. It is easy to show that this gives an 
algebraical model for intuitionist logic, and to build a counter-example for 
the excluded middle (using the topology of the real line, or any other 
topological space, but grr endows them with richer structures. Same for the 
quantum logic. In that sense, mechanism does predict new things in physics, and 
should be tested.






> 
>> But intuitively, you can see them arising from the fact that the first 
>> person indeterminacy has a continuum range, as the DU multiplies all 
>> histories on all oracles (real numbers) in the limit of all computations, 
>> which cannot be avoided from the first person views associated to the 
>> machine.
> 
> But you haven't even defined a first persons' "views", appearance from a 
> given place. 

Yes I do! That is what the “<>t” in the variant of G given by “[]p & <>t” is 
all about. The place is the reality I bet. 
Universal machine get that sensation because they can’t avoid their 
incompleteness which brings that nuance. It is an “instinctive” bet on some 
(indexical) large notion of reality. 





> You need metric space and physiscs for that.

Only for the physical reality, not a reality.



> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Second, Newton said space is a continuum so it's not a prediction peculiar 
>>> to Bruno.
>> 
>> Like the very existence of a physical observable universe, this is explained 
>> by Mechanism. Aristotle took this for granted, and Newton assumed the 
>> continuum at the start, which is not an explanation, even if that was a very 
>> clever move to get the correct local prediction. Note that Newton was aware 
>> that his theory was on shaky metaphysical base, though.
>> 
>> Now, Mechanism predicts only that some observable are continuous. To derive 
>> that time or position are such observable would need to get a notion of 
>> space, which in the mechanist approach is the most difficult things to get. 
>> We will get first the mathematics of knots, and derive space from there, 
>> perhaps. 
> 
> Which I take 

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-25 Thread Lawrence Crowell
The singularity of a black hole represents a change in phase of a system. 
The path integral defines states of the form

|ψ> = Z|0> = ∫D[φ]q e^{-iH(φ)t/ħ}|0>.

The partition function in statistical mechanics is of the form

Z = sum_n e^{-E_nβ}.

The primary differences are the partition function is Euclidean and 
discrete, while path integrals are complex valued and for continuous fields 
are themselves continuous. Let us consider the Ising model of spins with H 
= κσ_iσ_j. The partition function may then be thought in the manner 
Onsanger considered as

Z = sum_{ij} e^{-|i – j|ξ(β)},

where ξ(β) = (β - β_c)^n. Here β_c represents a critical temperature 
1/kT_c. The system is discrete since the Hamiltonian operates for nearest 
neighbor interactions. However for β = β_c the range expands “to infinity” 
and the system is continuous in that limit. This occurs at a phase change.

We may then compare this to the hypothesis that spacetime is built up from 
quantum entanglements. At the critical phase entanglements are entirely 
nonlocal and the path integral, or in the Euclidean sense, is continuous. 
The connection between the two is that ξ(β) =  τ/ħ for τ = it a 
Euclideanized time. At ξ(β) = 0 there is a quantum critical point and in 
the setting of entanglements and spacetime what we think of as a continuous 
spacetime is then defined. 

It is better to consider the Reissnor-Nordstrom or Kerr-Newman black hole 
with the outer and inner horizons

r_± = m ± sqrt{m^2 - a^2cos^2θ}.

The ring singularity occurs for r = 0 and θ = 0 or in Cartesian coordinates 
a^2 = x^2 + y^2. The departure from spherical coordinates and Cartesian 
coordinates is an oddity of spacetime being so twisted up in this region. 
The outer ergosphere occurs at r = 2m, there is also an inner horizon that 
occurs at r =  a cosθ, This inner ergosphere is continuous with the ring 
singularity at  θ = 0. The region bounded by the inner ergosphere is where 
timelike geodesics are forced into closed loops. These closed timelike 
loops are then associated with a monodromy induced by a phase where 
spacetime breaks down. 

[image: Kerr-surfaces.png]

Dafermos and Luk found that within the inner horizon there is a breakdown 
in uniqueness conditions for solution https://arxiv.org/abs/1710.01722 . 
This is because within this region geodesics may be timelike, and within 
the inner ergosphere they are constrained to be closed. I will confess to 
have not as yet read their entire paper, as it is a long tome with rather 
dense mathematics. However, the result appears at least commensurate with 
the hypothesis that spacetime as understood in general relativity becomes 
less defined.

Closed geodesics occur in anti-de Sitter spacetime as well. I have found a 
homomorphism between black  hole horizon states and states in AdS or 
equivalently CFT states on the boundary. This interestingly is defined with 
a form of the Riemann ζ-functions that give eigenvalues. The AdS_{n+1}  has 
in general topology S^1×R^n for S^1 timelike. Scott Aaronson have found 
that closed timelike loops for quantum computers solve NP problems, and in 
fact appear to cover all of P-SPACE https://arxiv.org/pdf/0808.2669.pdf . 
The diagram illustrates this 

[image: quantum computer with closed timelike curves.png]

There are then two registers of qubits R_{cr} that is causality respecting 
and R_{ctc} for qubits on closed timelike paths. The closed timelike curves 
in the path integral provide constructive and destructive interference of 
the wave function that is NP. There is evidence the zeros of the Riemann 
ζ-function is of a geometric complexity class that is NP 
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4B-9YspuI . The quantum eigenstates of 
gravity are then “computed” by closed timelike paths in a path integral, 
but where observers only have direct access to qubits in the R_{cr}.

LC

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-24 Thread Brent Meeker



On 12/24/2018 5:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 24 Dec 2018, at 07:44, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/23/2018 8:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php

Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum
gravity in the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic
physics, or quantum mechanics, with gravity, which explains the
dynamics of space and time. Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new
equations describe black holes in loop quantum gravity and
showed that black hole singularity does not exist.


"In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be
divided as small as we want. This is essentially the cause of
the singularity where the gravitational field becomes infinite.
In loop quantum gravity, the fabric of space-time has a
*tile-like structure*, which cannot be divided beyond the
smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this is the
case inside black holes and therefore there is no singularity,"
Singh said.


"These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum
excitations'-- which resolve the singularity problem are orders
of magnitude smaller than we can detect with today's
technology, but we have precise mathematical equations that
predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the
founding fathers of loop quantum gravity.



But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2
which showed spacetime to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck
length?


Brent,

Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory?  In 
another thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but wasn't 
one of Bruno's predictions that space and time would be continuous 
(not discrete), therefore it would predict LQG is false, and then 
https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 would be a confirmation of that.


First, I don't see that his theory even predicts a topoloical space.


By the semantics available for S4Grz1, and the X1* logics.


How does that define open sets?

But intuitively, you can see them arising from the fact that the first 
person indeterminacy has a continuum range, as the DU multiplies all 
histories on all oracles (real numbers) in the limit of all 
computations, which cannot be avoided from the first person views 
associated to the machine.


But you haven't even defined a first persons' "views", appearance from a 
given place.  You need metric space and physiscs for that.







Second, Newton said space is a continuum so it's not a prediction 
peculiar to Bruno.


Like the very existence of a physical observable universe, this is 
explained by Mechanism. Aristotle took this for granted, and Newton 
assumed the continuum at the start, which is not an explanation, even 
if that was a very clever move to get the correct local prediction. 
Note that Newton was aware that his theory was on shaky metaphysical 
base, though.


Now, Mechanism predicts only that some observable are continuous. To 
derive that time or position are such observable would need to get a 
notion of space, which in the mechanist approach is the most difficult 
things to get. We will get first the mathematics of knots, and derive 
space from there, perhaps.


Which I take as an admission that you have not done so.

Brent

String theory suggest that space could be a continuum, unlike Quantum 
Loop Gravity, and mathematically, string theory seems to be favoured 
by Mechanism, but that remains quite beyond … the mathematical logical 
tools available today ...


Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, 
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving 

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-24 Thread Philip Thrift


On Monday, December 24, 2018 at 9:29:16 AM UTC-6, Mason Green wrote:
>
> David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual universes 
> are discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is continuous). 
>
> “within each universe all observable quantities are discrete, but the 
> multiverse as a whole is a continuum. When the equations of quantum theory 
> describe a continuous but not-directly-observable transition between two 
> values of a discrete quantity, what they are telling us is that the 
> transition does not take place entirely within one universe. So perhaps the 
> price of continuous motion is not an infinity of consecutive actions, but 
> an infinity of concurrent actions taking place across the multiverse.” 
> January, 2001 The Discrete and the Continuous






So this (multiverse substrate) allows the universe to be a "continuous 
computer"?



*Finding the best model for continuous computation*
http://www.math.harvard.edu/theses/senior/resnick/resnick.pdf

Abstract.
* While the theory of computability over countable sets is well defined and 
flexible, the definition of computability over continuous sets (e.g. the 
real numbers), without the fortification provided by the Church-Turing 
Thesis, is much more contentious. Since Turing’s introduction of a 
universal device for computation over countable sets (the “universal Turing 
Machine”), several demonstrably non-equivalent formalizations of the 
intuitive notion of continuous (alternately: analog) computation, and more 
specifically, computation over the real numbers, have been proposed. None 
of these is yet accepted by the majority of mathematicians, and, as a 
result, the contemporary landscape of research into continuous computation 
is factional. I will present and compare several of dominant theories of 
continuous computation, including techniques from recursive analysis and 
the Blum-Smale-Shub model.*

- pt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-24 Thread Mason Green
David Deutsch suggested something like this I (that individual universes are 
discrete, but the multiverse as a whole is continuous).

“within each universe all observable quantities are discrete, but the 
multiverse as a whole is a continuum. When the equations of quantum theory 
describe a continuous but not-directly-observable transition between two values 
of a discrete quantity, what they are telling us is that the transition does 
not take place entirely within one universe. So perhaps the price of continuous 
motion is not an infinity of consecutive actions, but an infinity of concurrent 
actions taking place across the multiverse.” January, 2001 The Discrete and the 
Continuous

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-24 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 24 Dec 2018, at 07:44, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 12/23/2018 8:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in 
>>> the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum 
>>> mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time. 
>>> Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in loop 
>>> quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as small 
>>> as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where the 
>>> gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the fabric 
>>> of space-time has a tile-like structure, which cannot be divided beyond the 
>>> smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this is the case inside 
>>> black holes and therefore there is no singularity," Singh said.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> "These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- which 
>>> resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than we can 
>>> detect with today's technology, but we have precise mathematical equations 
>>> that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the founding 
>>> fathers of loop quantum gravity.
>>> 
>> 
>> But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 
>>  which showed spacetime to be smooth down 
>> to 1/525 of the Planck length?
>> 
>> Brent,
>> 
>> Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory?  In another 
>> thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but wasn't one of Bruno's 
>> predictions that space and time would be continuous (not discrete), 
>> therefore it would predict LQG is false, and then 
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2  would 
>> be a confirmation of that.
> 
> First, I don't see that his theory even predicts a topoloical space. 

By the semantics available for S4Grz1, and the X1* logics. But intuitively, you 
can see them arising from the fact that the first person indeterminacy has a 
continuum range, as the DU multiplies all histories on all oracles (real 
numbers) in the limit of all computations, which cannot be avoided from the 
first person views associated to the machine.




> Second, Newton said space is a continuum so it's not a prediction peculiar to 
> Bruno.

Like the very existence of a physical observable universe, this is explained by 
Mechanism. Aristotle took this for granted, and Newton assumed the continuum at 
the start, which is not an explanation, even if that was a very clever move to 
get the correct local prediction. Note that Newton was aware that his theory 
was on shaky metaphysical base, though.

Now, Mechanism predicts only that some observable are continuous. To derive 
that time or position are such observable would need to get a notion of space, 
which in the mechanist approach is the most difficult things to get. We will 
get first the mathematics of knots, and derive space from there, perhaps. 
String theory suggest that space could be a continuum, unlike Quantum Loop 
Gravity, and mathematically, string theory seems to be favoured by Mechanism, 
but that remains quite beyond … the mathematical logical tools available today 
...

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-23 Thread Brent Meeker



On 12/23/2018 9:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:49 PM Bruce Kellett > wrote:


On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:45 PM Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:

On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote


https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php

Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop
quantum gravity in the 1990s that marries the laws of
microscopic physics, or quantum mechanics, with gravity,
which explains the dynamics of space and time. Ashtekar,
Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in
loop quantum gravity and showed that black hole
singularity does not exist.


"In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be
divided as small as we want. This is essentially the
cause of the singularity where the gravitational field
becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the fabric of
space-time has a *tile-like structure*, which cannot be
divided beyond the smallest tile. My colleagues and I
have shown that this is the case inside black holes and
therefore there is no singularity," Singh said.


"These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum
excitations'-- which resolve the singularity problem are
orders of magnitude smaller than we can detect with
today's technology, but we have precise mathematical
equations that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar,
who is one of the founding fathers of loop quantum gravity.



But is this consistent with
https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 which showed spacetime
to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck length?


Brent,

Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory? 
In another thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but
wasn't one of Bruno's predictions that space and time would be
continuous (not discrete), therefore it would predict LQG is
false, and then https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 would be a
confirmation of that.


How did Bruno predict that from a digital (integral) model)?


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/zq6LVIjhrn0/kVZao94IeGkJ 
(A post from 2007, citing his work from 2004)


The essential idea is that the first person experience of a physical 
world, and of making predictions or measurements involves infinite 
numbers of competing programs going through and realizing the state of 
the observer's mind at one point in time. Predicting what happens 
next, the outcome of an experiment, a measurement of a particle's 
location, etc. involves the statistics concerning the infinity of 
these programs. It means the physical appearances/physical universe is 
itself not computable (not without infinite time and resources), and 
this implies a continuum somewhere in physics. (i.e. eechanism is 
incompatible with digital physics)


Being not computable is not the same as being a continuum.

The gamma ray observation assumes certain things about the interaction 
of photons with space and I think it assumes a roughly uniform "tiling" 
so it may not be definitive.  But it brings up my point that the long 
sought quantum theory of spacetime my throw a monkey wrench in Bruno's 
"predictions".


Brent


And where did he make such a prediction?


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/2numMVaxsJ0/QePUwROUln4J 
(post from 2007, explaining the continuum)


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/yKiXo8jB7VY/VxqraVyz5c4J 
(post from 2009, describing that physics cannot be entirely 
computational if "I am a machine")


https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/QuedsKrpW4g/C6pAbJItvfMJ 
(post from 2009, pointing out that if digital physics is true, then 
mechanism would be refuted)


Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group 

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-23 Thread Brent Meeker



On 12/23/2018 8:45 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php

Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum
gravity in the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic
physics, or quantum mechanics, with gravity, which explains the
dynamics of space and time. Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new
equations describe black holes in loop quantum gravity and showed
that black hole singularity does not exist.


"In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided
as small as we want. This is essentially the cause of the
singularity where the gravitational field becomes infinite. In
loop quantum gravity, the fabric of space-time has a *tile-like
structure*, which cannot be divided beyond the smallest tile. My
colleagues and I have shown that this is the case inside black
holes and therefore there is no singularity," Singh said.


"These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum
excitations'-- which resolve the singularity problem are orders
of magnitude smaller than we can detect with today's technology,
but we have precise mathematical equations that predict their
behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the founding fathers of
loop quantum gravity.



But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2
which showed spacetime to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck
length?


Brent,

Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory?  In 
another thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but wasn't one 
of Bruno's predictions that space and time would be continuous (not 
discrete), therefore it would predict LQG is false, and then 
https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 would be a confirmation of that.


First, I don't see that his theory even predicts a topoloical space.  
Second, Newton said space is a continuum so it's not a prediction 
peculiar to Bruno.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-23 Thread Philip Thrift


On Sunday, December 23, 2018 at 11:49:59 PM UTC-6, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:49 PM Bruce Kellett  > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:45 PM Jason Resch > > wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>>
 On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote


 https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php

 Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity 
 in the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum 
 mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time. 
 Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in loop 
 quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist.


 "In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as 
 small as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where 
 the gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the 
 fabric of space-time has a *tile-like structure*, which cannot be 
 divided beyond the smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this 
 is the case inside black holes and therefore there is no singularity," 
 Singh said.

 "These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- 
 which resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than 
 we can detect with today's technology, but we have precise mathematical 
 equations that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the 
 founding fathers of loop quantum gravity.


 But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 which 
 showed spacetime to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck length?

>>>
>>> Brent,
>>>
>>> Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory?  In another 
>>> thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but wasn't one of Bruno's 
>>> predictions that space and time would be continuous (not discrete), 
>>> therefore it would predict LQG is false, and then 
>>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 would be a confirmation of that.
>>>
>>
>> How did Bruno predict that from a digital (integral) model)? 
>>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/zq6LVIjhrn0/kVZao94IeGkJ 
> (A post from 2007, citing his work from 2004)
>
> The essential idea is that the first person experience of a physical 
> world, and of making predictions or measurements involves infinite numbers 
> of competing programs going through and realizing the state of the 
> observer's mind at one point in time. Predicting what happens next, the 
> outcome of an experiment, a measurement of a particle's location, etc. 
> involves the statistics concerning the infinity of these programs. It means 
> the physical appearances/physical universe is itself not computable (not 
> without infinite time and resources), and this implies a continuum 
> somewhere in physics. (i.e. eechanism is incompatible with digital physics)
>  
>
>> And where did he make such a prediction?
>>  
>>
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/2numMVaxsJ0/QePUwROUln4J 
> (post from 2007, explaining the continuum)
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/yKiXo8jB7VY/VxqraVyz5c4J 
> (post from 2009, describing that physics cannot be entirely computational 
> if "I am a machine")
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/QuedsKrpW4g/C6pAbJItvfMJ 
> (post from 2009, pointing out that if digital physics is true, then 
> mechanism would be refuted)
>
> Jason
>



One can still get a "computable continuum" from *higher-type* computing.



*Exhaustible sets in higher-type computation*
Martin Escardo
[ https://arxiv.org/abs/0808.0441 ]

*We say that a set is exhaustible if it admits algorithmic universal 
quantification for continuous predicates in finite time, and searchable if 
there is an algorithm that, given any continuous predicate, either selects 
an element for which the predicate holds or else tells there is no example. 
The Cantor space of infinite sequences of binary digits is known to be 
searchable. Searchable sets are exhaustible, and we show that the converse 
also holds for sets of hereditarily total elements in the hierarchy of 
continuous functionals; moreover, a selection functional can be constructed 
uniformly from a quantification functional. We prove that searchable sets 
are closed under intersections with decidable sets, and under the formation 
of computable images and of finite and countably infinite products. This is 
related to the fact, established here, that exhaustible sets are 
topologically compact. We obtain a complete description of exhaustible 
total sets by developing a computational version of a topological 
Arzela--Ascoli type characterization of compact subsets of function spaces. 
We also show that, in the non-empty case, they are precisely the computable 
images of the Cantor space. The emphasis of this 

Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-23 Thread Jason Resch
On Sun, Dec 23, 2018 at 11:49 PM Bruce Kellett 
wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:45 PM Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php
>>>
>>> Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in
>>> the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum
>>> mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time.
>>> Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in loop
>>> quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist.
>>>
>>>
>>> "In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as
>>> small as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where
>>> the gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the
>>> fabric of space-time has a *tile-like structure*, which cannot be
>>> divided beyond the smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this
>>> is the case inside black holes and therefore there is no singularity,"
>>> Singh said.
>>>
>>> "These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- which
>>> resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than we can
>>> detect with today's technology, but we have precise mathematical equations
>>> that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the founding
>>> fathers of loop quantum gravity.
>>>
>>>
>>> But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 which
>>> showed spacetime to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck length?
>>>
>>
>> Brent,
>>
>> Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory?  In another
>> thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but wasn't one of Bruno's
>> predictions that space and time would be continuous (not discrete),
>> therefore it would predict LQG is false, and then
>> https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 would be a confirmation of that.
>>
>
> How did Bruno predict that from a digital (integral) model)?
>

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/zq6LVIjhrn0/kVZao94IeGkJ (A
post from 2007, citing his work from 2004)

The essential idea is that the first person experience of a physical world,
and of making predictions or measurements involves infinite numbers of
competing programs going through and realizing the state of the observer's
mind at one point in time. Predicting what happens next, the outcome of an
experiment, a measurement of a particle's location, etc. involves the
statistics concerning the infinity of these programs. It means the physical
appearances/physical universe is itself not computable (not without
infinite time and resources), and this implies a continuum somewhere in
physics. (i.e. eechanism is incompatible with digital physics)


> And where did he make such a prediction?
>
>

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/2numMVaxsJ0/QePUwROUln4J
(post from 2007, explaining the continuum)

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/yKiXo8jB7VY/VxqraVyz5c4J
(post from 2009, describing that physics cannot be entirely computational
if "I am a machine")

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/QuedsKrpW4g/C6pAbJItvfMJ
(post from 2009, pointing out that if digital physics is true, then
mechanism would be refuted)

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-23 Thread Bruce Kellett
On Mon, Dec 24, 2018 at 3:45 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:
>
>> On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote
>>
>>
>> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php
>>
>> Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in
>> the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum
>> mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time.
>> Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in loop
>> quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist.
>>
>>
>> "In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as
>> small as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where
>> the gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the
>> fabric of space-time has a *tile-like structure*, which cannot be
>> divided beyond the smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this
>> is the case inside black holes and therefore there is no singularity,"
>> Singh said.
>>
>> "These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- which
>> resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than we can
>> detect with today's technology, but we have precise mathematical equations
>> that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the founding
>> fathers of loop quantum gravity.
>>
>>
>> But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 which
>> showed spacetime to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck length?
>>
>
> Brent,
>
> Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory?  In another
> thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but wasn't one of Bruno's
> predictions that space and time would be continuous (not discrete),
> therefore it would predict LQG is false, and then
> https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 would be a confirmation of that.
>

How did Bruno predict that from a digital (integral) model)? And where did
he make such a prediction?

Bruce

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-23 Thread Jason Resch
On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 9:33 PM Brent Meeker  wrote:

>
>
> On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php
>
> Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in
> the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum
> mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time.
> Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in loop
> quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist.
>
>
> "In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as small
> as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where the
> gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the fabric
> of space-time has a *tile-like structure*, which cannot be divided beyond
> the smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this is the case
> inside black holes and therefore there is no singularity," Singh said.
>
> "These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- which
> resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than we can
> detect with today's technology, but we have precise mathematical equations
> that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the founding
> fathers of loop quantum gravity.
>
>
> But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 which
> showed spacetime to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck length?
>

Brent,

Wouldn't this be a successful prediction of Bruno's theory?  In another
thread you said it had only made retrodictions, but wasn't one of Bruno's
predictions that space and time would be continuous (not discrete),
therefore it would predict LQG is false, and then
https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 would be a confirmation of that.

Jason

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-23 Thread Philip Thrift


On Saturday, December 22, 2018 at 8:33:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php
>
> Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity in 
> the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum 
> mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and time. 
> Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes in loop 
> quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does not exist.
>
>
> "In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as small 
> as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity where the 
> gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum gravity, the fabric 
> of space-time has a *tile-like structure*, which cannot be divided beyond 
> the smallest tile. My colleagues and I have shown that this is the case 
> inside black holes and therefore there is no singularity," Singh said.
>
> "These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- which 
> resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller than we can 
> detect with today's technology, but we have precise mathematical equations 
> that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, who is one of the founding 
> fathers of loop quantum gravity.
>
>
> But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 which 
> showed spacetime to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck length?
>
> Brent
>
>
> "At LSU, we have been developing state-of-the-art computational techniques 
> to extract physical consequences of these physical equations using 
> supercomputers, bringing us closer to reliably test quantum gravity," Singh 
> said.
>
> Einstein's theory fails not only at the center of the black holes but also 
> to explain how the universe was created from the Big Bang singularity. 
> Therefore, a decade ago, Ashtekar, Singh and collaborators began to extend 
> physics beyond the Big Bang and make new predictions using loop quantum 
> gravity. Using the mathematical equations and computational techniques of 
> loop quantum gravity, they showed that the Big Bang is replaced by the "Big 
> Bounce."
>
>
>
> [ a short lecture on LQG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMpkFde3euA ]
>
> - pt
>
>
>


This question of measurements supporting "smoothness" of space vs. the 
"tile"-based model of LQG occurs to me too. The LQG people must have 
addressed it, one would think.


My idea is that the tiles (as they are called above) of LQG would need to 
have a fractal* nature, so LQG would somehow combine with scale relativity 
/ fractal spacetime [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scale_relativity ].

What else could it be?

* 
cf. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/4263590_Generating_Fractal_Tiles_using_Voronoi_Diagrams
*This paper introduces a fractal partition class defined over a unit 
wrapped space. The cells of a fractal partition have self-similarity 
property and can be used as a set of tiles that can tile Rn 
space periodically or quasi-periodically with non-uniform tiling density. 
An algorithm for generating set of fractal cells using Voronoi diagram 
computation is proposed with several applications in computer graphics and 
computational chemistry. *


- pt

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: "No black-hole singularities" in an undated loop-quantum-gravity theory

2018-12-22 Thread Brent Meeker



On 12/22/2018 12:04 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2018-12/lsu-be122018.php

Theoretical physicists developed a theory called loop quantum gravity 
in the 1990s that marries the laws of microscopic physics, or quantum 
mechanics, with gravity, which explains the dynamics of space and 
time. Ashtekar, Olmedos and Singh's new equations describe black holes 
in loop quantum gravity and showed that black hole singularity does 
not exist.



"In Einstein's theory, space-time is a fabric that can be divided as 
small as we want. This is essentially the cause of the singularity 
where the gravitational field becomes infinite. In loop quantum 
gravity, the fabric of space-time has a *tile-like structure*, which 
cannot be divided beyond the smallest tile. My colleagues and I have 
shown that this is the case inside black holes and therefore there is 
no singularity," Singh said.



"These tile-like units of geometry--called 'quantum excitations'-- 
which resolve the singularity problem are orders of magnitude smaller 
than we can detect with today's technology, but we have precise 
mathematical equations that predict their behavior," said Ashtekar, 
who is one of the founding fathers of loop quantum gravity.




But is this consistent with https://arxiv.org/abs/1109.5191v2 which 
showed spacetime to be smooth down to 1/525 of the Planck length?


Brent



"At LSU, we have been developing state-of-the-art computational 
techniques to extract physical consequences of these physical 
equations using supercomputers, bringing us closer to reliably test 
quantum gravity," Singh said.


Einstein's theory fails not only at the center of the black holes but 
also to explain how the universe was created from the Big Bang 
singularity. Therefore, a decade ago, Ashtekar, Singh and 
collaborators began to extend physics beyond the Big Bang and make new 
predictions using loop quantum gravity. Using the mathematical 
equations and computational techniques of loop quantum gravity, they 
showed that the Big Bang is replaced by the "Big Bounce."




[ a short lecture on LQG: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMpkFde3euA ]

- pt
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.